My point is simply tha chukonus are much stronger than archers and have a better cost overall. Ckn is one of the reasons why chinese are a top pick.
Letis is similar, in the sense that it is a very powerful UU, probably superior to the knight line, except vs archers (which is not negligible btw).
Why is ckn fine while Letis needs a nerf?
Bulgarians are not the new Slavs. Slavs was, is and will be a much better civ because of their eco bonus and cheap siege and Bulgarians are just a civ primarily dependent on somehow massing up their UU and getting all upgrades.
Cumans are definitely not the new Huns. Huns both in AOC and later are a fast civ good on open maps with good mobility and production speed whereas Cumans do well in walled or easy-wall maps where they can take advantage of their Feudal age second town center.
Tatars again are not a new Mongols by any means. Tatars bonus is heavily terrain dependent and theyâre not a civ heavily dependent on an OP unique unit.
Youâre comparisons seem to be from a DM point of view for Cumans/Huns but even there Slavs/Bulgarians or Tatars/Mongols are not similar.
If youâre playing CBA or some other scenario where you keep spawning Leitis while others get some random units like this, then sure Leitis are OP. In general game play if youâre up against a commonly picked civ, youâre going to be lagging behind position-wise while you mass up or transition into Leitis. And no one is going to fight 10 or 20 of their ranged units like this against a bigger army of Leitis, like no one will fight 15 Mangudai out in the open against 18 Leitis. I can create a scenario like this for Tarkans vs ranged units and claim theyâre OP and need a nerf. For a civ with no good eco bonus, its going to be tough to get 4-5 castles and mass up their unique units which cost a lot of food. They can be good in team games in late imp, once you have trade running but again not OP. Lots of units are quite good in such situations - Mangudais, Mamelukes, Boyars. So thereâs no need to Nerf these units. Theyâre fine.
If you nerf Leitis, like many others pointed out here, No one will ever make them and theyâll join Elephant archers, Ballista elephants and Karambit warriors in the list of useless/pointless unique units.
i wasnât calling them clones or anything, they all just share a lot of similarities. my point was to draw attention to the fact that civs are starting to become less unique due to sheer quantity.
yeah they donât all play 100% the same, but they do have quite a lot of stuff in common.
exactly what iâve been saying. yeah Leitis are a strong unit, but Lithuanians are pretty much always going to be behind the curve on that.
exactly. at most it wonât be until mid or late Imperial age that Lithuanians will be able to even start making a respectable number of Leitis. made even worse by the fact that they literally have one of the worst economies in the game.
letâs be honest, you could say this about a lot of things in team games with trade going.
Actually Elephant Archers just got quite a boost and iâd expect to see them quite a bit in team games.
Bugarians Two-handed Swordsmen beat FU Champions, their UU needs 2 different units in equal measure to properly counter, and Stirrups ensures they have no only great Knight Rush, but also amazing lategame Trash.
Bulgarians are much more open-ended than Slavs are, and you can play them either as a full on Cavalry civ, or as a Cav Archer + Infantry civ, and both styles are viable.
They donât. Their tech trees on some buildings might look similar but theyâre in general quite different in terms of their gameplay. And theyâre indeed unique. The second tc for Cumans, Kreposts Konniks and free militia line upgrade for Bulgarians, Hill bonus for Tatars are unique and offer a different gameplay with these civs as compared to Slavs, Huns or Mongols.
The civs are less unique only under specific settings like late imp game on Black Forest or DM where multiple civs can have similar meta composition.
Ya, thats what I said, Mangudais, Mamelukes, so many units can seem OP in TGs with full trade.
lol, theyâre slightly less terrible but still terrible. They now donât die to cavaliers and pikes but still die to Paladins, halbs and probably kill a couple of more Arbalests that are running away but anyways still quite a terrible unit for their cost and unnecessary for Indians.
This true for RM late game vs other non-infantry civs otherwise no one constantly fights their champs all game once they know which ones are better.
You need to build a castle and research that tech. Its not much beneficial for knight rush. Its more suited for early imp Cavalier rush and then transition into two handed swordsman or Konniks gameplay.
You can do Cav Archers + halbs even with Japanese or Lithuanians. But thatâs not their meta. Cavalry are their main units, two-handed swordsmen in some cases. So its either a Krepost-konnik rush or boom Cavalier raid and transition to two-handed swordsmen main game play for them. And Slavs are quite open ended too. You can make use of the farming bonus and go all-in castle age or hit imp do halbs+rams or bombard canons vs cavalry civs, go Boyars in TG or Druzinha champs. More versatile in my opinion.
Slavs have one of the best eco bonuses and their knight rush is thus automatically better than Bulgarians. Stirrups is cool but no way youâre getting up a castle and researching it that fast, itâs no longer a rush by then
Cav Archer + Infantry, not just Halbs. Bulgarians 2Hs with Bagains can even beat Paladins cost-effectively. and there are not many ways of pulling them off your Vills and TCs, if you do not have Siege Onagers or HCs, and HCs are countered by Cav Archers.
You would never go for Cavalry or Archery Range as Slavs. All they do in late Imp, is Siege Onagers + Halbs.
Slavs have no Bombard Cannon.
what does this accomplish? Cav archer+infantry donât have any good synergy. Hussars are still much better against skirms. Hussars also better vs siege and archers
again not true, hussars, knights and Boyars are all used depending on situations
again, depending on situation. That is a slow comp, both by resources and push speed
This is just the same thing most fans of the teutonic knights claim why its the best unit while its not. You donât have to fight Paladins with bulgarian 2Hs or vikings champs or whatever unit vs which it is not going to be cost effective for you. Theyâre slow units. Bulgarian CA + 2Hs is a very expensive combo, both cost gold and is only a problem for very few civs like Goths. The other civs will destroy them sooner with better eco or do Arbalest/whatever archer uu/their own CA(like Turks or Magyars). So it is an army choice that works on very specific situations but not a solid one.
You can do Cavalry with Slavs, the farming eco bonus and the Tanky boyars would definitely be a good option. So knights into cavaliers and then transition into Boyars and Hussars for raiding is a fine strategy with Slavs. Yes you wouldnât do ranges but you can do Champs too if needed. Quite solid after Druzinha.
Because it is the easiest resource that is defendable. And the conversion of the wood is definitely favourable towards food. (already feudal 175 food for 60 wood and only gets better)
The wood cost isnât negligible (massing 10 chukunu means 150 farms which is the equivalent of 375 food) but i only want the relics bonus capped.
You judt proved his point. You need wood to turn into food. Which means its not the easiest resource. That is in fact wood. Yeah I can get a better return on investment by further turning that wood into food and selling for gold, but the fact is that requires TIME.
So you want an already deniable bonus to be nerfed, on a civ that isnât currently overpowered.
If you learn to wall and defend your base, wood is also easy to defend. Thereâs the fact that lumber rate can be directly upgraded but farming rate canât be, only increased efficiency to a degree. The wood to food conversion takes much longer
All this math is wrong. 10 chuks is 400 wood, thatâs roughly 7 farms which translates to 3150 food (with Chinese team bonus). And this is no way to measure wood cost since it takes quite a while to harvest all that food from a farm.
Lithuaninans have three bonuses, +150 food sounds incredible but pales in comparison to top tier bonuses, faster moving trash is good for defense but compared to the other military bonuses, nothing special. That leaves us to the relic bonus which can be denied by how the opponent plays and its only truly a great bonus if you get all 4 (impossible in 1v1 unless the opponent doesnât care). And extra melee attack isnât even as OP as people like to make of it, Paladin with 4 relics still needs usual 4 hits to kill a halb.
So there you have it, Liths have 3 bonuses, 2 of them are B+ and one of them can be A tier or C or straight up no bonus depending on how the game goes
I Wouldnât even give the food bonus a B+, its easily one of the worst economic style bonuses in the game. great at the start, but absolutely crap in the long run.
I disagree, it allows you to go Feudal sooner, or with 3 exta Vills, and both of those option add up quickly.
like i said, great at the start, but in the long run its very minimal.
Just because you need wood to make food, doesnât mean it isnât easier to get food and defend it. Stragglers tree give you like 5 or more farms. Solely because the way you can get food is greater than 1 way resource means it is easier to get.
This 2 things doesnât matter. The civ becomes overpowered with more than 2 relics. 150 more food means faster castle age and they have faster producing monastry.
Only for a strict given time and not every map is optimally wallable.
Iâm only considering the wood they costs more than a normal archer
Yes. It does. It literally requires more steps and takes longer.
If thatâs true, why do they not have an overpowred win rate?
A ckn is 40 wood. A normal archer is 25 wood. That means the difference is 15 wood.
10 times 15 is 150. Or roughly 2.5 farms. Not much.